Kashrut and Christmas trees

For many it might seem absurd to view a Christmas tree or New Year’s celebrations as idol worship.

ministry of religious services 311.
(photo credit:Marc Israel Sellem)

Is food served in restaurants, hotels, event halls and other eating
establishments rendered unkosher by the presence of a Christmas tree? How about
the holding of New Year’s celebrations, the presence of a nativity scene or a
large cross or Santa Claus? The answer, says the Chief Rabbinate, could very
well be “yes” in at least some of the above-mentioned instances. That’s because
according to a statement it issued this week, “It is forbidden for a Jew to be
present in a place where idol worship is being conducted.”

Since, argues
the Chief Rabbinate, kashrut supervisors are unable to be present at an eating
establishment – say because a Christmas tree is displayed there – they cannot
ensure that the food being served is kosher and the establishment will lose its
right to advertise itself as “kosher.”

For many it might seem absurd to
view a Christmas tree or New Year’s celebrations as idol worship. Today more
than ever such symbols and celebrations are devoid of any religious meaning for
most people. Nevertheless, the Chief Rabbinate’s rabbis – or any other person
for that matter – should have the right to hold such a belief and that right
should be protected.

The problem is the Chief Rabbinate’s rabbis have a
state-sanctioned monopoly over kashrut in Israel. The law states plainly that no
food establishment is permitted to advertise itself as “kosher” unless it first
receives certification from the Chief Rabbinate. As a result, if it were to rule
that a Christmas tree, or any other Christmas or New Year’s symbol is idol
worship, dozens, perhaps hundreds, of restaurants, event halls, hotels and other
establishments that serve food would be forced to choose between making
Christian clientele feel welcome during the holiday season and holding onto
Jewish patrons who will only eat kosher food.

In Haifa or Jerusalem,
where there are large numbers of Christian locals and tourists, this could be a
tough choice.

Another problem is that because the Chief Rabbinate enjoys
a state-sanctioned monopoly over kashrut supervision, the Supreme Court has the
power to interpret, and place limits on that monopoly. In the process, the
Supreme Court invariably interferes with inherently religious matters best left
to the rabbis.

That’s precisely what happened in 1990, for instance, when
the High Court ruled that the Jerusalem Rabbinate could not revoke a kashrut
certificate from a food establishment because its owners permitted belly dancing
on the premises. At the time, the court made a distinction between what it
considered to be “core” issues of kashrut and considerations that were not
directly related to food preparation and were, therefore, deemed by the court to
be irrelevant.

This blatant intervention in a strictly religious matter
of Jewish law became a precedent for subsequent rulings that curtailed the Chief
Rabbinate’s powers. A ruling by the Chief Rabbinate that Christmas trees render
a restaurant unkosher would inevitably be challenged in court. Judging from past
rulings, the Chief Rabbinate would probably lose.

This situation is
untenable. And the best way to solve it is to end the Chief Rabbinate’s
state-sanctioned monopoly over religious services – in particular kashrut
supervision.

Restaurants, hotels, event halls and other establishments
that serve food and want kashrut supervision should have the freedom to choose
from among competing Orthodox rabbinic organizations. Some will be more lenient
and others more stringent. Some might rule that there is no contradiction
between Christmas trees or belly dancing and kosher food. But even if none do,
the Supreme Court will not have the power to interfere. Private kashrut
supervisors that do not have a state-sanctioned monopoly over kashrut
supervision would have the religious freedom to rule in accordance with their
consciences.

At the same time, owners of food establishments and their
clientele would have the economic freedom to choose from among a wide range of
legitimate Orthodox opinions on what is considered kosher and would not be
subjected to the Chief Rabbinate’s monopoly.